curious here, thinking about the design of the V1 when compared to the R3. The V1 has to do nearly 2X of an R3, does anyone know if the V1 has the capability (as-is today) to get the range of an R3 at the cost of SA? Right now it seems V1 has to: 1.)Scan front antenna 2.)Scan rear antenna(in parallel to 1) 3.)Compare scans 4.) report to user What I'm pondering is... similar to how you can segment the bands and see performance in range and detectibility on Ka... Does anyone know if you'd see further range improvements if v1 had a "front antenna only" type of mode. I know you can mute the rear, but wondering if you put all of the processing power on a single antenna of the V1 to improve the range.... Then if the front detected a threat kick up the rear after some time. Defeats the purpose of a V1, but would be cool if it proved to improve range... And v1 gave us that as an one of their "modes"
From what I understand, what you are describing is more closely understood as "reactivity". There are ways to increase reactivity but they are at the margins. Range on the other hand is more related to the horn antenna which determines the "sensitivity". Will be interested to hear a more in-depth technical analysis from more knowledgeable members. Here's a good thread on horns: www.rdforum.org: Horns , Internal signals, processors and how detectors detect?
I guess ancient wouldn't really matter if you moved the resources to one antenna(given there aren't other challenges with RF design) The way I see it, your dividing your MIPS between two antennas now(unless they have a separate processor for each antenna), moving it to one should be able to yield some sort of performance gain(given no RF challenges) What I've noticed that brings me to this conclusion... Is the performance changes with band segmentation.. Assume the V1 wants to see consistent/same signal for a certain set window before alert. If you could "speed up" the number of Samples within that window and verify the threat is "real" then you may theoretically be able to alert sooner ?
Good point - reactivity would indeed be a key aspect. It could also drive range increase i would assume, but that would be dependent on how V1s algo runs in the background(I.e. Alert after you see X number of 34.7 samples within X period of time) The other thing I noticed is that I think the KA pop for 33.8 is prioritized over all other alerts and can't be shut off. Think their algorithm probably lives in 33.8 Ka pop or uses a parallel sort of "thread" to keep a live scan for the absurdly brief signal. Wish we had more ability to turn on and off aspects of the radar to further improve performance(i.e. Ka pop, rear antenna, Etc)
This is all clearly explained (with diagrams) in the interleaved sweeps patent. The 33.8 POP sweeps are "interleaved" with the rest of the sweeps, so that the minimum possible time elapses between 33.8 sweeps: Most of the benefit comes from turning Ka Guard Off, which allows the detector to alert immediately upon seeing a Ka signal versus having to see the same signal on several consecutive sweeps. A more modest benefit in reactivity is seen by limiting the bandwidth of Ka scanned (and therefore reducing the time between successive scans of the same frequency).
This was super helpful! Thank you! My thought on interleaving this was similar, figured there were subroutines out to check for 33.8 each time... so if code was implemented was implemented for 33.8 on a detector you'd do something like... Main Check for 33.8 Check for 34.7 Check for 33.8 Check for 35.5 Check for 33.8 etc... etc! --- Double Post Merged, Sep 14, 2018, Original Post Date: Sep 14, 2018 --- @InsipidMonkey Besides being cost prohibitive, wouldn't it be advantageous to have multiple processors(or cores) that are dedicated to each band? In parallel, dedicated RF circuitry. So to make a higher performance detector, what if.. You had 2 RF antennas(K specific, and KA specific - forget X) then, a set of DSPs/processors dedicated to the sweep specific area?
Then you'd have two detectors taped together. It'd be massive, and you would have interference between them negatively affecting performance. You could keep them separate, mounted front and rear, but that's just a remote unit.
InsMon good points and great explanation re: 33.8 and sweeps. Alot of technical matter which though I am not entirely familiar with, still interests me.
I think part of what gives r1/3 it’s perceive range is higher reactivity. It would be interesting to compare them moving very slowly to take reactivity out if the equation and compare only sensitivity.
So you're saying that if I have 6 manual sweeps defined, 33.8 POP is swept between each manual sweep, like this: 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 1 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 2 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 3 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 4 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 5 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 6 repeat instead of like this, which is what I thought it does: 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 1 Sweep 2 Sweep 3 Sweep 4 Sweep 5 Sweep 6 repeat
I don't think 33.8 gets that much of a priority, does it? I too thought that your later example was how it works. Sure would be nice if we could control 33.8 to make sure.
Absolutely - However, this just kind of rattles me. There has been very little discussion over what really happens with 33.8 so this revelation spooks me.
In order to provide POP protection, it needs to sweep the 33.8 band at least once every 67ms (or about 15 times per second). The way I understand it, the existing sweeps will be broken up so that it can insert a Ka POP sweep at the desired times (or, as stated in the patent, the existing sweeps are interrupted by an asynchronous timer to trigger a POP sweep at the desired interval). So taking your example above, it could be something like (ignoring X & K band for simplicity): 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 1 Sweep 2 Sweep 3 33.8 POP sweep Sweep 4 Sweep 5 Sweep 6 repeat I doubt we'll ever know for sure though. The patent doesn't explicitly state how they implement custom sweeps, and VR keeps things pretty close to the vest.
Any idea how wide the 33.8 sweep is, and how long it takes? I'll assume it must take a lot less than 67 ms.
From the patent: "As illustrated, the POP frequency band comprises the range of frequencies from about 33.675 Ghz to about 33.925 Ghz which lie within the Ka police radar frequency band." So probably about 200MHz + oversweep. Additionally, every 5 or so POP sweeps it sweeps the "POP interference frequency band may comprise the range of frequencies from about 22.450 Ghz to about 22.617 Ghz. The POP interference band is swept to detect and suppress the third harmonic, i.e., “falsing”, from another radar detector using an 11 Ghz local oscillator." I am not sure about the sweep rate. The patent states the asynchronous timer is adjusted "to maintain the sweep cycle time of the police radar detector at an approximately constant nominal value of 256 ms". A full sweep with default settings is about 2.85GHz, so if it is completing that every 256ms, the sweep rate is 2.85/.256 = 11.14 GHz/s. This means a ~200MHz POP sweep would take just under 18ms, which seems like a long time if it is checking every 67ms.
So why can't the 33.8 sweep be turned off? There's no 33.8 in my state and the problem I run into when I run custom sweeps is KA falses (all of which seem to occur in the 33.6-33.9 range). I'm assuming it's due to 1) KA POP being forced ON and 2) KA Guard being forced OFF when you're running "c" or "C". When I run in logic mode "l", I do not get the KA falses; maybe becuase I can turn KA POP off. Dunno.
Just as the Uniden and Escorts are ancient, they are all based off the same concepts since radar started. Yet the V1 is the only one advanced enough to be almost completely customizeable and fully integrates with a Smart phone. If the V1's rear antenna was truly something that could be turned off i could see it improve its performance a tad, but no more than what Ka gard or custom sweeps did for the V1. VR needs to do a whole lot more than that.
